[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27601363]It's because America doesn't care to take 100 civilian lives for 10 terrorist lives in bombings that insurgents are constantly rising.[/QUOTE]
We don't negotiate with terrorists. If they have 100 hostages. We'll send in a counter-terrorist hostage rescue team and try to save them.
America is fighting wars the wrong way, but not how OP is saying. The War in Iraq pretty much was over instantly, the reason we've been there so long is because we've been trying to develop Iraq as a democracy.
OT but I just noticed that thread title is grammatically incorrect. It would have to be "America isn't fighting wars rightly."
ITT: People are dumb for having correct grammar. :downs:
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601348]fix'd[/QUOTE]
Innocent civilian bombings are mostly from drone attacks from the US, they're usually accidental but still, people would side with the "lesser evil", and in this case they would side with the insurgents.
The reason why we have such a high insurgency rate today is mainly because our military force is not as applied to occupation of overseas territory as compared back in the early 1900's/late 1800's.
General John Pershing is the only American general in history that had a 0% Insurgency in an occupied territory (Philippines) under his command. His solution?
Shoot anybody that isn't a pig.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601368]Yeah curse those terrorists UAVs bombing all those Pakistani villages[/QUOTE]
The terrorists kill the people they claim to be fighting for. They take civilian hostages, shoot civilians, and have suicide bombers kill civilians.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601421]The terrorists kill the people they claim to be fighting for. They take civilian hostages, shoot civilians, and have suicide bombers kill civilians.[/QUOTE]
So we have insurgents fighting America because of the actions of America's enemy. Good logic.
e: while i'm not saying the terrorist actions don't have an effect, to blame the insurgency on them is ludicrous. Why wouldn't they be organizing to fight the terrorists?
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601378]We don't negotiate with terrorists.[/QUOTE]
Is that you Mr Bush?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601030]Check your facts. Specifically, check Wikileaks. There was strong intel that Iraq was developing WMDs, and even physical evidence (found after the invasion) that they hadn't destroyed all of the ones they were supposed to after Gulf War I. I'm too tired to check which UN Resolution it was, but that did, technically, mean that the cease-fire made after the Gulf War was abrogated, causing a resumption of war.[/QUOTE]
I [i]think[/i] its resolution 1441 you are looking for.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441[/url]
I assume the obligations mentioned in "material breach of Iraq's obligations" are the clause of the cease fire which required Iraq to destroy its WMD's.
Although I think they needed to be found before the conflict resumed for it to be legal, but the legality of the Iraq war is way out of the context of this thread so its best to end that here I guess.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601438]So we have insurgents fighting America because of the actions of America's enemy. Good logic.[/QUOTE]
The terrorists lie to the civilians and teach them corrupt versions of the Islam religion.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;27601312]Large and modernized, but France in particular and the UK (until they learnt from their early war mistakes soon after) had the wrong doctrine for the wrong war.
For the Soviet Union, you have to understand that after Stalin thought that eliminating most of the Soviet Army's key leadership was a good idea, all the Soviet military theory and doctrinal development by great minds like Tukhachevsky, Svechin and Triandafillov was basically thrown away and they had to relearn it in the middle of war.[/QUOTE]
Yeah? And?
Nobody is really ready for the next World War, either.
China has the manpower, but they don't have nearly the nuclear arsenal of Russia or the US. By some estimates, they have less than Israel. They also lack a real navy - they can (probably) defend their shores, but they can't invade by sea.
Russia has the nukes, the equipment and the manpower, but their morale is CRAP. They lose about as many men to suicide as the US loses to enemy action. They also have some economic problems, which will be critical in a long war.
The US has the manpower, and the equipment, but we're specializing in the wrong thing for a big war. Tactics and strategy (plus future equipment development) is focused on the little brushfire wars and occupations.
The UK doesn't quite have the manpower or equipment to really fight a World War on its own. It could still be a major player, but it's more likely to play Italy to someone's Germany. More importantly, the internal politics of the UK don't look like they favor a war.
Germany is pretty much the same, except with the addition of a treaty banning them from launching a war.
Nobody else really has the capability to start World War 3. At best, an alliance of Iran and Pakistan, supported economically by the Middle East, could start a big war, but I think their more likely to be the "Archduke Ferdinand" of the next war.
[editline]23rd January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jsm;27601446]I [i]think[/i] its resolution 1441 you are looking for.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441[/url]
I assume the obligations mentioned in "material breach of Iraq's obligations" are the clause of the cease fire which required Iraq to destroy its WMD's.
Although I think they needed to be found before the conflict resumed for it to be legal, but the legality of the Iraq war is way out of the context of this thread so its best to end that here I guess.[/QUOTE]
Resolution 1441 was passed just prior to the invasion, essentially giving Iraq one last chance to avert a war. It didn't.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601309]Yeah that military-industrial complex sure did boost up our economy.[/QUOTE]
It actually destroys our economy through inflation.
I've been saying this a lot lately, but I'll say it again.
The military is putting money into people's pockets, but those people aren't producing anything to create demand from consumers. So we end up with everyone having loads of money but nothing to spend it on. The price of what is left goes up and results in a recession.
Americans are idiots when it comes to this.
[QUOTE=Dastardly;27601328]War doesn't determine who is right, it only determines who is left.[/QUOTE]
True, but I would very much like to be the one left.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601458]The terrorists lie to the civilians and teach them corrupt versions of the Islam religion.[/QUOTE]
Because i'm sure the civilians are raring and ready to listen to whatever the (other) people bombing them have to say. You can't be seriously claiming that interior terrorist actions are making insurgents against the US.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601464]Yeah? And?
Nobody is really ready for the next World War, either.
China has the manpower, but they don't have nearly the nuclear arsenal of Russia or the US. By some estimates, they have less than Israel. They also lack a real navy - they can (probably) defend their shores, but they can't invade by sea.
Russia has the nukes, the equipment and the manpower, but their morale is CRAP. They lose about as many men to suicide as the US loses to enemy action. They also have some economic problems, which will be critical in a long war.
The US has the manpower, and the equipment, but we're specializing in the wrong thing for a big war. Tactics and strategy (plus future equipment development) is focused on the little brushfire wars and occupations.
The UK doesn't quite have the manpower or equipment to really fight a World War on its own. It could still be a major player, but it's more likely to play Italy to someone's Germany. More importantly, the internal politics of the UK don't look like they favor a war.
Germany is pretty much the same, except with the addition of a treaty banning them from launching a war.
Nobody else really has the capability to start World War 3. At best, an alliance of Iran and Pakistan, supported economically by the Middle East, could start a big war, but I think their more likely to be the "Archduke Ferdinand" of the next war.
[editline]23rd January 2011[/editline]
Resolution 1441 was passed just prior to the invasion, essentially giving Iraq one last chance to avert a war. It didn't.[/QUOTE]
You forgot about India... They are growing exponentially industrially. But right now they are busy fighting their own civil war.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27601419]The reason why we have such a high insurgency rate today is mainly because our military force is not as applied to occupation of overseas territory as compared back in the early 1900's/late 1800's.
General John Pershing is the only American general in history that had a 0% Insurgency in an occupied territory (Philippines) under his command. His solution?
Shoot anybody that isn't a pig.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to see this strategy used on the US since we Americans seem to think it's a good idea to do to anyone else.
When China invades us, I hope they slaughter us all because thats what we'd do right?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601464]Yeah? And?[/quote]
You're claiming that "blitzkrieg" is the perfect solution to any military problem, but in practice, it has worked against adversaries that really did not know how to effectively counter it. There is no "best" military doctrine and "blitzkrieg" and "show and awe" are far from being perfect.
[quote]Nobody is really ready for the next World War, either.
China has the manpower, but they don't have nearly the nuclear arsenal of Russia or the US. By some estimates, they have less than Israel. They also lack a real navy - they can (probably) defend their shores, but they can't invade by sea.
Russia has the nukes, the equipment and the manpower, but their morale is CRAP. They lose about as many men to suicide as the US loses to enemy action. They also have some economic problems, which will be critical in a long war.
The US has the manpower, and the equipment, but we're specializing in the wrong thing for a big war. Tactics and strategy (plus future equipment development) is focused on the little brushfire wars and occupations.
The UK doesn't quite have the manpower or equipment to really fight a World War on its own. It could still be a major player, but it's more likely to play Italy to someone's Germany. More importantly, the internal politics of the UK don't look like they favor a war.
Germany is pretty much the same, except with the addition of a treaty banning them from launching a war.
Nobody else really has the capability to start World War 3. At best, an alliance of Iran and Pakistan, supported economically by the Middle East, could start a big war, but I think their more likely to be the "Archduke Ferdinand" of the next war.[/QUOTE]
Don't know if this is a new post or part of your answer.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27601528]I'd love to see this strategy used on the US since we Americans seem to think it's a good idea to do to anyone else.
When China invades us, I hope they slaughter us all because thats what we'd do right?[/QUOTE]
Sadly, human rights has been adapted by a majority of influential humans. Violating these things would incite much anger to the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601505]You forgot about India... They are growing exponentially industrially. But right now they are busy fighting their own civil war.[/QUOTE]
True. Now that I think about it, India is probably the best candidate for starting a World War. They've got China to the north, and they're not exactly friendly already. If India starts sticking up for something (Nepal, Taiwan, etc.), they could piss the PRC off enough to launch a war.
And that's not accounting for Pakistan. India and Pakistan get along about as well as Mac fanboys and PC fanboys. And they both have nukes. Lovely.
[editline]23rd January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;27601545]You're claiming that "blitzkrieg" is the perfect solution to any military problem, but in practice, it has worked against adversaries that really did not know how to effectively counter it. There is no "best" military doctrine and "blitzkrieg" and "show and awe" are far from being perfect.
Don't know if this is a new post or part of your answer.[/QUOTE]
That was part of my answer. Nobody was really ready for WW2 - even Germany wasn't prepared. Nobody was ready for WW1, either. And, as I just showed, nobody is ready for WW3.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601566]True. Now that I think about it, India is probably the best candidate for starting a World War. They've got China to the north, and they're not exactly friendly already. If India starts sticking up for something (Nepal, Taiwan, etc.), they could piss the PRC off enough to launch a war.
And that's not accounting for Pakistan. India and Pakistan get along about as well as Mac fanboys and PC fanboys. And they both have nukes. Lovely.[/QUOTE]
Their government supports the US though.
But if the Naxaalite-Maoists win the Indian Civil War, then we're fucked.
China + India = A formidable force.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601599]Their government supports the US though.
But if the Naxaalite-Maoists win the Indian Civil War, then we're fucked.
China + India = A formidable force.[/QUOTE]
I am aware that the current Indian government is aligned with the US. That's actually what would make that war a World War - if China and India go to war, the US would be drawn in on India's side. The Korean conflict would probably ignite at that time too. The rest of Western Europe would probably be drawn in alongside the US, although I really can't predict which side Russia would be on.
[QUOTE=SkinkYEA;27599627][img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg/472px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg[/img_thumb]
We should fight wars like this guy does.
Sherman's Total War.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually related to this man on my mother's side.
I bet this sounds kind of cold but OP kind of makes sense
They should've just gone in there with full force and just got the damn job done. I'm not sure if more collateral damage would have occurred from drawing it out, or by going all in first off.
Sure would've been less controversy
[QUOTE=gman003-main;27601663]I am aware that the current Indian government is aligned with the US. That's actually what would make that war a World War - if China and India go to war, the US would be drawn in on India's side. The Korean conflict would probably ignite at that time too. The rest of Western Europe would probably be drawn in alongside the US, although I really can't predict which side Russia would be on.[/QUOTE]
Just my thoughts: Russia would probably side with the US, seeing as how the Cold War worked out for them, and they probably wouldn't want to face us again, be it directly or indirectly.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601421]The terrorists kill the people they claim to be fighting for. They take civilian hostages, shoot civilians, and have suicide bombers kill civilians.[/QUOTE]
That's true, but I don't think that any civilian would think "Weeeellllll, at least they killed a few terrorists" after a family member died due to a drone attack.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;27601721]That's true, but I don't think that any civilian would think "Weeeellllll, at least they killed a few terrorists" after a family member died due to a drone attack.[/QUOTE]
And if a suicide bomber killed their family member instead of a drone?
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27601746]And if a suicide bomber killed their family member instead of a drone?[/QUOTE]
Then they would hate the terrorists. I'm not seeing the link here between America hate and terrorists killing Iraqis/Afghanis
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27601760]Then they would hate the terrorists. I'm not seeing the link here between America hate and terrorists killing Iraqis/Afghanis[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying that argument works both ways.
Is there really a right way to kill millions of innocent civilians to get some guy who disagrees with you/threatened you to back off?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
